It seems that I hear this idea perpetuated quite frequently these days, whether it's coming from Jenna Jameson or the re
-
PhillyV49 — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 10:47 PM)
I just want to understand why they are content with being whores. Evolution gave us the greatest gift it has ever given any species - a big brain, with the potential to achieve such amazing things. To spend your life sucking dick on camera is completely wasting that potential. It's the lazy, easy way out. Are they truly happy with that being their legacy? If so, it is pathetic. It's not like they're contributing anything meaningful to civilization. The world would function perfectly well without porn.
-
jp3183 — 11 years ago(September 25, 2014 10:41 PM)
I just want to understand why they are content with being whores.
"(fortune, fame, fantasy, etc)"
Evolution gave us the greatest gift it has ever given any species - a big brain, with the potential to achieve such amazing things. To spend your life sucking dick on camera is completely wasting that potential. It's the lazy, easy way out. Are they truly happy with that being their leg5b4acy? If so, it is pathetic. It's not like they're contributing anything meaningful to civilization.
Pornstars' answer: yawn
The world would function perfectly well without porn.
It's not made to help the world function to begin with. It has existed for centuries (much longer if you count pornographic drawings, paintings, sculptures, etc) b/c there's demand for it. Otherwise, it wouldn't have evolved into an industry. But in today's world, sex videos don't even have to involve the exchange of money. Homemade porn are uploaded online for free by exhibitionists around the world simply b/c it excites them. Pornstars wouldn't even exist today if people actually stop buying their products. And we've already established that those who pay are more pathetic than those who get paid. Prostitution is known as "the world's oldest profession". That's your precious civilization for you.
Skip to 5:00 of this video for some comedic enlightenment on how evolution's "greatest gift" gave us porn:
http://vimeo.com/16922193 -
quarrion-1 — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 06:41 AM)
What I mean to say is that I don't really have an emotional investment in what they think - I just have a desire to understand it.
And I fail to see what is difficult to understand about it. If you are exhibitionist enough to perform sex on camera and never want to be a teacher then the obstacles aren't high. I don't see what barrier you are seeing.
Performer? Yes. Actor or artist? Please. Don't make me laugh.
I cannot comment on it - to me mainstream actors also aren't artists. So if people think that Helen Mirren is a great artist, then I can live with Sasha Grey being one.
Porn is not art - never was, never will be.
I simply disagree here. While actors are not artists in my book, movies definitely are art. And a few porn movies most certainly meet the threshold for art easily, possibly even grand art.
To get paid money to have sex is to be a whore.
But your own legal system consistently disagrees with you. She isn't paid to have sex with dude A, she is paid for the performance. You use a falseb68 equivalency here - much like confusing a fun ride on a roller coaster with the hard work of a truck driver.
The fact that money and sex are involved is a collateral - otherwise any divorced or married woman who gets material benefits would be a whore too.
I could even live with that standard but if housewives are not whores, porn stars aren't either (of course both could moonlight as prostitutes) and I think that the courts have it partially right there.
I'm sure she loves what she does, but just because something makes you feel good, doesn't mean it's good for you - or anyone else.
Sure it doesn't. But if you get paid, like it then that pretty much is what one colloquially would refer to as good. Working in a coal mine for a limited salary, now that is "not good" by any of the standards.
But maybe I am missing what you mean with "not good" here?
I don't see why any woman with the slightest amount of self respect would ever participate in something like that.
Ah this is what you try to understand! But some people have violent sex in private life even without money. I met girls who dumped "dud dates" because they refused to slap or kick or spank them or to force-gag them this has little to do with porn.
But yes, I don't understand it either.
I'm shocked that her parents haven't yet dragged her kicking and screaming away from the video set.
Ehm because she is an adult whose entitled to choices. This is the 21st century we tolerate most forms of widespread consenting sex .. and less the prudes successfully succeed in demonizing a certain activity. -
Just_Jenna — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 06:32 PM)
.this is like that scene in Fight Club when Edward Norton fights himself.111c
www.jennamoquin.com -
-
PhillyV49 — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 11:07 PM)
One thing I'd like to make clear before I finish this discussion is that I in no way believe that porn stars are immoral for doing what they do. I'm confident that Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey, Belle Knox, and all other porn stars are good and decent human beings in general. However, that doesn't change the fact that that when it comes to justifying what they do for a living, they don't seem to be thinking rationally at all.
-
quarrion-1 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 12:33 AM)
However, that doesn't change the fact that that when it comes to justifying what they do for a living, they don't seem to be thinking rationally at all.
I still don't know what you mean. How do they justify their work and why is the justification not rational?
A justification (if any is needed then) doesn't have to be true to be rational. Their values and decision making processes can be so different from yours that the justification would appear wanton to you and "just cool" to them.
They may even err on the reasons they chose this job and could still be rational. So I wonder what you mean with that. -
PhillyV49 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 02:41 PM)
The fact that they ignore the obvious and pretend that what they do for a living is something to be respected or admired when the evidence points to the contrary. To ignore facts and to lie to yourself is to be irrational. The only difference between being a porn star and a prostitute is the presence of a camera.
-
quarrion-1 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 08:18 PM)
The fact that they ignore the obvious and pretend that what they do for a living is something to be respected or admired when the evidence points to the contrary.
I think you use a metric that simply does not exist. Respect in the most broad sense is measured by the remuneration you get for your skills and porn stars score high on by this standard.
Sure there are people who disrespect porn stars, quite a few possibly and they use some ancient "society does not " metric but they likely are not the group of people porn stars hand out with nor their clients. Porn fans, as fans of strippers usually have a reasonable amount of respect for the looks, skills, personality etc of their stars. So while there are lowly paid prudes who look down on porn stars, it is likely entirely irrelevant for their lives.
You have to approach this much like Muslims look down on us because of what we eat, drink, think, say but it doesn't affect or impress us much.
The only difference between being a porn star and a prostitute is the presence of a camera.
I am sorry but you are very, very wrong here. Legally and factually. You don't want to be irrational, do you? There are tons of other key differences: a porn star does not solicit sex, she knows her partner and that partner does NOT pay her. Any date-sex is closer to prostitution than porn is. -
PhillyV49 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 11:27 PM)
Those are trivial differences intended to take attention away from the elephant in the room: there is still financial compensation for having sex. It doesn't matter who is doing the paying. The dictionary definition of a prostitute is a person who engages in sexual intercourse for money. No mention is made of who is required to pay this person.
I've made myself as clear as I possibly can. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. -
ManToothO — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 05:02 AM)
PhillyV49, wow! I read your OP with interest. You phrased your words a bit "out there" and was contradictory in a few places (which many picked up)
but
I interpreted your desire to understand. However, with each consecutive post you just sound insincere, dense and hypocritical when many are trying to help and communicate with you.
As someone said to you on this thread; you clearly are not interested in understanding despite your claim. And then ending your thread with "agree to disagree" Sheesh! -
quarrion-1 — 11 years ago(September 29, 2014 05:34 AM)
Those are trivial differences intended to take attention away from the elephant in the room: there is still financial compensation for having sex.
If you ignore the technicalities then any woman married to a rich man, having a wealthy boyfriend, having a relationship with someone of influence is a prostitute.
More so than any porn star as the latter are paid for their performance whereas the former get awards immediately for being intimate with their suitor.
It doesn't matter who is doing the paying.
To you perhaps. It does very much to the law.
The dictionary definition of a prostitute is a person who engages in sexual intercourse for money.
Again, I have problem with that terse and naive definition, it simply renders 80% of all adult women prostitutes and hence turns the expression meaningless.
I am telling you why I do not agree with you: you try to engage in a false equivalence between traditional rigid language and colloquial terminology. And the falsehood is two-fold: the dictionary definition originates from a time where there was no porn and where marriages were for life, they did not have to worry about the subtleties of greedy women and starlets. The fact that you would exclude someone like Carmen Electra and Anna Nicole Smith from the ancient definition where they almost certainly belong but still insist that porn stars are prostitutes tells me that you are - possibly unintentionally - not honest with the contemporary perception of the term.
Second and more importantly: you would be much less wrong if you were European. A prostitute for them is simply a women who provides these sexual services as a job. Most folks do not further care. Whereas in America, prostitute is predominantly an invective or at least a slanderous term. People call people a prostitute if they want to insult them, not to describe what they do for a living.
You can easily the veracity of what I am saying by the fact that if you are once a prostitute you are always regarded as one. You cannot become a teacher, airlines won't hire you etc. The same is not true for most other unskilled professions.
So once more: the dictionary term originates from time immemorial where porn stars did not exist and prostitutes were more respected. The way you apply it is - at least from my perspective - disingenuous. -
Just_Jenna — 11 years ago(September 29, 2014 05:28 PM)
If you ignore the technicalities then any woman married to a rich man, having a wealthy boyfriend, having a relationship with someone of influence is a prostitute.
Exactly. In fact, but that deduction, most married women are whores. Perhaps we're getting to the root of the issue with this poster (whom I suspect is a sock account).
It's not so much that women in porn are whores, it's that ALL women are whores in his opinion.
www.jennamoquin.com -
jp3183 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 11:13 PM)
To ignore facts and to lie to yourself is to be irrational.
Ah, the foundation of religion. LOL!
Again, "(fortune, fame, fantasy, etc)" is the only evidence that matters to them. What you respect and admire is insignificant, as far as they're concerned. It's hilarious that you keep thinking that descriptions like "idiot", "pathetic", "irrational", etc would actually matter to women who get referred to (and treated) as a whore, slut, c_unt, skank, bitch, tramp, bimbo, hooker, twat, hole, f_uck toy, cum dumpster, prostitute, etc Once more, I give you their answer: yawn. -
Just_Jenna — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 02:31 PM)
whether you are a man or a woman, if you get paid money to have sex, you are a whore.
I'm not arguing this, especially since the dictionary.com definition of whore is exactly that.
But, where is the line drawn between prostitution and using sex to sell yourself? I'm talking about TV stars, singers, and those celebrities who have very little talent but yet look really good (Carmen Electra, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton).
In your opinion, are they whores as well? They're not having sex to make money (though could be sleeping with producers, etc. in order to get famous, that's another side of the debate), but they're using sex to make money. Would they also be whores?
Getting to the other side of the debate, what about women who sleep with powerful men in order to get ahead? This could be either actresses, or corporate women sleeping with CEOs to become CEOs themselves one day. Are they also whores in your opinion?
www.jennamoquin.com -
PhillyV49 — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 05:28 PM)
I would say that having sexual intercourse, whether it's vaginal, anal, or oral, in exchange for any kind of material gain, makes you a prostitute/whore. It is not just limited to street hookers who seek out Johns.
Based on this rationale, Carmen Electra is certainly not a prostitute/whore because there is no sexual intercourse involved in what she does. However, Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton are more difficult to discuss because they both made sex tapes. If it is the case that they both made money off of these tapes, then I'm going to have to say that they are prostitutes/whores. If not, then they are simply two women who enjoy filming themselves having sex, which there is nothing wrong with.